I have been doing research on the Oriental Orthodox churches and Eastern Orthoodox church so as to truly understand what seperates us and to see if reunification is possible. Now although I can be VERY wrong the difference in Christology are the only major difference (major enough for split) and that the specific difference are truly only linguistic as they express the same idea with different words! I mean in regards To Duophysitism and Miaphysitism they essentially express the same idea that christ's nature is both inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably linked but the words expressed seem to make it sound so different to the chalcedonian creed. Then there is Monothelitism and Duothelitism which are talking about the wills of Christ that say he had two will that wanted the same thing (EO) where the Monothelitists say that christ had one will (OO) but I see that they are essentially the same idea because OO say that he had one will but EO say he had two will which strived for the same thing so isn't that the same thing?! My main question after reading this is first of all a minor yes or no question if anyone can answer which is the 7th EO ecumencial council which was about the veneration of icons if the council after Chalcedon is not accepted by the OO do they venerate Icons? Then the other question is is reunification between EO and OO going to be in my lifetime (I am 17 years old)?

Then the other question is is reunification between EO and OO going to be in my lifetime (I am 17 years old)?

at what age will you die?

Logged

"The Unity of the Church, as Your Holinesses well know it, is the will of God and ought to be an inspiring example to all men. It should always be a help and not a hindrance to the unity of men of different religions."-Emperor Haile Selassie To the Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches 1965

Many years ago, His Holiness Vazken I came to Los Angeles and, among other things, engaged in an ecumenical service at a Greek Orthodox Church. I was there and I listened intently to the talk His Holiness gave after the service. He stressed everything our two Churches have in common and I specifically recall him saying the Armenian Church saw nothing objectionable about the veneration of icons established by what the EO's call the Seventh Council. That being said, I've heard that council also contained in it a condemnation of some OO saints. That part would of course be objectionable to us, but the veneration of icons is not a problem.

"the [Oriental] Church saw nothing objectionable about the veneration of icons established by what the [Eastern Orthodox] call the Seventh Council."

I find it very interesting that the "crisis" of iconoclasm did not even effect western europe (which at the time was VERY Eastern Orthodox). Until this current discussion, it never occurred to me that there was yet another "body" of Christians that never had to deal with the crisis of iconoclasm: which is the "Oriental" Orthodox. It would certainly make sense that the Byzantine empire would be the most insistent on "accepting the 7th Ecumenical council" if they were the only ones that had to deal with that crisis in the first place!

This is not to diminish the VAST differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism... however, I hope this "insight" leads all readers of this thread (especially EO) to an awareness that perhaps the "7th Ecumencial Council" was perhaps more local than "ecumenical."

God bless

Logged

"Disputes merely about words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike."-St. Athanasius (†444)

That's extremely dangerous ground there. The infallibility of ALL Seven Ecumenical Councils is one of the bedrocks of our faith. Putting ourselves, as Eastern Orthodox, in the position of denying one of the fundamental tenants of our faith in order to speed the process of reunion is ecumenism of the worst kind.

That's probably the biggest issue in the discussions concerning reunification. Our theologians admit we all believe the same thing, but these other issues are pretty big and need to be resolved. I think it is fair to say the EO's define themselves as the Church of the Seven Councils. Setting aside any of those councils, or redesignating them as local, is not going to happen. The OO's, on the other hand, will not accept any councils beyond Ephesus. The reasons for this are not only doctrinal, but also historical and psychological, as it's really hard to accept a council in the name of which your ancestors were persecuted, slaughtered, etc.

Then there is the issue of saints. Both sides have condemned saints venerated by the other. I don't think that is as formidable a barrier as the councils, but it is still sticky. This was discussed in this other thread:

There are other issues having to do with liturgical practice. The EO's tend to be more uniform in their liturgical practices, while the OO's allow more diversity. I don't see this as being as big an issue as the others, but it's still something to deal with.

There are other issues that are more administrative in nature, like the way the EO's rank their patriarchs, etc. Again, these issues are not as big, but they are there to be dealt with.

So, while I believe that in a spiritual sense we are really one Church, there's a lot to be overcome before that becomes more of a concrete reality.

The infallibility of ALL Seven Ecumenical Councils is one of the bedrocks of our faith. Putting ourselves, as Eastern Orthodox, in the position of denying one of the fundamental tenants of our faith in order to speed the process of reunion is ecumenism of the worst kind.

What makes an Ecumenical Council infallible? Is the infallibility intrinsic to the Council, such that we must accept EVERY decision of the Council as authoritative? Or do we recognize an Ecumenical Council as authoritative because that which it proclaims is the faith of the Church? What if a particular decision of a council recognized as Ecumenical does not represent the faith of the Church as manifested in the catholic consciousness of the faithful? For instance, can we recognize a council as truly ecumenical if one entire half of the church never accepted it as ecumenical? Is it possible for that half of the Church to reject the council while still holding fast to the faith proclaimed by that council?

A couple of threads that speak on this topic so that we don't hijack this thread:

The reasons for this are not only doctrinal, but also historical and psychological, as it's really hard to accept a council in the name of which your ancestors were persecuted, slaughtered, etc.

I would definitely put more weight on the historical issues.

In my opinion, I think many people have unwittingly developed a rather innovative conception of an "Ecumenical Council" which insists on dogmatising the formalities and historical incidents associated with it. It's almost as if some would regard every cough and sneeze at a Council believed to be Ecumenical to be something absolutely God-inspired and hence not capable of being questioned.

Each side can insist that every historical movement and decision of their Communion in response to the incidents in question was made with the absolute authority of God, as if each Communion's Fathers were stripped of their human autonomy and possessed by God to say and do everything that was said and done. Or...we can take off those rosy coloured lenses and face the reality that God does not operate through His Church in such a mechanical and simplistic manner (as much as we may wish that He does). PeterTheAleut's signature is pertinent in this regard: "Truth is often in the paradox."

I think this sense of legalism, this claim to a monopoly of God and His Truth, this sense of arrogance which lays claim to knowing, in an almost absolute sense, the workings of God, was the very problem with the Pharisees, and I cannot help but think that many Orthodox (EO and OO) will be judged side by side with the Pharisees for applying the same mindset in opposition to God's will (simply in different historical stages of God's redemptive plan for mankind.)

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

This is completely off-topic, so I apologize in advance, but I just have to ask: when you say " ... if one entire half of the church never accepted it as ecumenical" do you mean to imply that the EO churches and the OO churches were "two halves" of the Church, back in the fifth century? (That is to say, do you mean that the Latin Church didn't count as a part of the Church, as early as the fifth century?)

God bless,Peter.

I'm not sure what Peter meant, but I have to stress that the OO Church did present a huge chunk of Christianity that rejected Chalcedon, not to mention an even more diverse array of cultural traditions.

I also like to make note early that OO's do not believe in "Mono"theletism, but, as cliche as this sounds, "Miatheletism." We truly believe in all characters of humanity and divinity unconfusedly and inseparably united, included will and operations. There are also other instances where "will" can be defined differently as well, not as an energy of the nature, but rather an action of the person or hypostasis.

I think Fr. John Romanides makes note that Monotheletism was solely a problem in the Chalcedonian Church, just as Iconoclasm was. (He also makes note that Nestorians are the ones that suffer from Monotheletism. I have not found anyone question or challenge this point as of yet, which is a very very interesting point, imo.)

I have to say that I enjoyed this part of EA's post:

Quote

It's almost as if some would regard every cough and sneeze at a Council believed to be Ecumenical to be something absolutely God-inspired and hence not capable of being questioned.

I think the Chalcedonians need another ecumenical council simply for the sake of defining for us dogmatically what "ecumenical" means for the sake of moving on to whatever desire of union exists today.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

The tangent was a little heated. Hence my comment here and in the next post:

Wait. Are the Chalcedonians having a bit of a squabble amongst themselves in the OO folder? That's not right. You're supposed to be squabbling with the OO's. We're feeling very neglected right now. Just kidding. Actually, let's try to keep this on the topic of how to heal the devision between EO's and OO's. Thanks.

Nope, it isn't. They mean that me and many others are unbaptized heretics, descended from apostates.

Hey, that's supposed to be us OO's whom the EO's are calling the "unbaptized heretics, descended from apostates." Again, let's keep this on how to heal the division caused by Chalcedon, not that other division caused by the filioque.

Wait. Are the Chalcedonians having a bit of a squabble amongst themselves in the OO folder? That's not right. You're supposed to be squabbling with the OO's. We're feeling very neglected right now. Just kidding. Actually, let's try to keep this on the topic of how to heal the devision between EO's and OO's. Thanks.

Strange, isn't it? And we Chalcedonians don't even have a council that drove us apart to squabble over.

It seems to me, though, that the intra-EO debate about the place of RC in their ecclesiology is similar to the one about OO.

Hey, that's supposed to be us OO's whom the EO's are calling the "unbaptized heretics, descended from apostates." Again, let's keep this on how to heal the division caused by Chalcedon, not that other division caused by the filioque.

Well, much of the difficulty in the reunification is the trouble of how to accomplish it while saving face about the past. It's hard to repudiate past battles over which many of your Church's saints stood to the death (even if, in our eyes today, the battles were really cultural/political/linguistic misunderstandings).

Well, much of the difficulty in the reunification is the trouble of how to accomplish it while saving face about the past. It's hard to repudiate past battles over which many of your Church's saints stood to the death (even if, in our eyes today, the battles were really cultural/political/linguistic misunderstandings).

Yes, there is that mentality to deal with. "How dare we call such great luminaries as St. John of Damascus and St. Maximos the Confessor (from the EO side) ignorant and claim that we know more than these great fathers do!" And I know the OO have their great anti-EO saints, too. You read the traditionalist polemics that come from such places as the Holy Mountain (Mt. Athos) and find publication on orthodoxinfo.com and you often see something akin to the following: "In keeping with this spirit, the phrase, 'We now clearly understand...,' has no place among Orthodox. The classical Patristic dictum, 'Following the Holy Fathers...,' is the only one which expresses how Orthodox understand themselves."1

Truly, I think we just want to be divided. Both sides, as far as I can recon, believe the very same thing. We hold on to the same faith in the same God, and much the same practices. It is the human factor which gets in the way. No one is willing to sit at the table and say, "You know, we messed up here. Our pride got in the way. We want to be the only ones in charge and the only ones with the keys to the kingdom, so we figured you can't be. We goofed. But instead of making excuses, were gonna put our heads together, and pray that God make our minds and hearts one in the Holy Spirit, so that we can mend this long festering wound and begin to walk together again, like God intended. We have the world to contend with, and that's more than enough." And we can point fingers at eachother for ever and say that either of us are the arrogant ones. The truth really is that, at least in my view, we are too ready to wave documents and claim correctitude, much as the pharasee in the temple. We need look to the publican in this case, and until we do, there will be no healing. There will be no union. This is not an overly emotional person speaking here, but one who has seen these debates, read these threads, talked to my OO and EO bretheren, and see the same weariness about fighting over minutiae. If we want to come together, we will find a way with God's help. If we don't, we stay as we are: divided brothers, wanting to talk but refusing to take the first step.

And yes, I know of the many dialogues that have take place between our two churches. And I know the above seems overly simplified. Maybe that's the point.

I think you speak truth here. I often think that the division has existed for so long that it is now self-perpetuating. We on both sides maintain the split only because we have been divided for so long, though we cannot remember why.

It funny was being biased does I was blindly seeing how the miaphysite view can be confused with the monophysite view but I never saw how the EO's view of the diaphysite seems like the Nestorian heresy reworded thanks everyone for the great input. EkhristosAnest you have been quoted as knowing more on the state of negotiations between the EO and the OO I would love to hear your information. Also how do you get on the private chat boards because I would like to look at the threads about OO and EO relations this stuff really intrigues me and hope that reunification becomes "official" as it seems to be spiritually reunified among many brethren's!

Truly, I think we just want to be divided. Both sides, as far as I can recon, believe the very same thing. We hold on to the same faith in the same God, and much the same practices. It is the human factor which gets in the way. No one is willing to sit at the table and say, "You know, we messed up here. Our pride got in the way. We want to be the only ones in charge and the only ones with the keys to the kingdom, so we figured you can't be. We goofed. But instead of making excuses, were gonna put our heads together, and pray that God make our minds and hearts one in the Holy Spirit, so that we can mend this long festering wound and begin to walk together again, like God intended. We have the world to contend with, and that's more than enough." And we can point fingers at eachother for ever and say that either of us are the arrogant ones. The truth really is that, at least in my view, we are too ready to wave documents and claim correctitude, much as the pharasee in the temple. We need look to the publican in this case, and until we do, there will be no healing. There will be no union. This is not an overly emotional person speaking here, but one who has seen these debates, read these threads, talked to my OO and EO bretheren, and see the same weariness about fighting over minutiae. If we want to come together, we will find a way with God's help. If we don't, we stay as we are: divided brothers, wanting to talk but refusing to take the first step.

And yes, I know of the many dialogues that have take place between our two churches. And I know the above seems overly simplified. Maybe that's the point.

Walk into any OO Church and you would need to be completely blind to miss the icons which we venerate. (Notably, neither Nestorians nor Anglicans have icons in the places they meet.)

As I do not know how long you are going to live, I can only pray that reunification may take place during your lifetime. (Can anyone confirm whether the Syrian Orthodox and the Antiochian Orthodox Churches are in intercommunion please?)

The only other problem is what to do with Synaxarium texts which condemn the other Church. For example, coming up this week in the Coptic Synaxarium is a story about how 30,000 Coptic Christians were martyred for refusing to accept the Council of Chalcedon. St. Samuel the monk, having heard the soldiers read the Tome of Leo, lept up and cursed the Tome and anyone else who would change the Faith of our Fathers. Words like these very strongly suggest that he zealously defended what the OOs had received. I'm aware of saints in both branches of the Church which 'converted' from the other and are condemned for so doing. What do we do about them? I could go on but you get the idea.My worthless suggestion, say that all these saints were zealous for the true Orthodox Christian Faith as best they understood it and remove condemnations. If they are needed to explain something or for some other reason then add a sentance to say that the condemnation has been removed (once it has been) with something to the affect of the above statement explaining how and why.

May I please ask when the EOs started refering to themselves as the "Church of the Seven Councils"? Obviously the Apostles never did this nor did St. Athanasius nor St Cyril nor anyone else for many centuries of Christianity? Also, there are also an Eighth and a Ninth Ecumenical Council recognised by the Eastern Orthodox Church (though different from those of the RCs). Why then don't the EOs call themselves the "Church of the Nine Councils"?

I should also note from reading this that whilst the bishops would be the ones to form a council to solve our division, they would probably not pre-empt resolving issues regarding this within their own diocese by doing so. In other words, the lay people need to first have their hearts settled before union can be achieved. I have met somebody who said quite plainly that "only the Oriental Orthodox are Christian". Now until this person can be convinced that EOs are also Christian, it would be dangerous to this person's soul for the bishop to join with EOs. Nonetheless, people who hold these strict views seem to be a dwindling number. Hopefully the EO monks in a certain area may soon understand the OO position that we may unite also.

Peace be with Christ's Church.

Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime....because I am blind and yet I see.

Didymus I think to answer your question about why the Orthodox call themselves the "church of the 7 councils" is because 8 and 9 are not truly considered ecumenical because of the division between east and west. interestingly didymus I was actually going to ask a learned OO whether there were OO saints that were 100% against the EO and vice versa. Also to answer that particular query both of can agree no matter how righteous and holy a saint is that does not mean what they say is doctrine and is definitely not infallible what we should admire is that these people died to protect the apostolic faith at all costs!

Didymus I think to answer your question about why the Orthodox call themselves the "church of the 7 councils" is because 8 and 9 are not truly considered ecumenical because of the division between east and west.

Actually, after the Great Schism, many--I would venture to say the majority--in the Orthodox Church don't believe Rome needs to be represented to make a council ecumenical. "Rome no longer follows the way of truth, so why should we care what she thinks?" But you are right that many do not recognize the so-called "Eighth and Ninth Councils" as ecumenical. We recognize the Palamite hesychasm defended in the councils as part of the essence of our faith, but, to a good number of us, the councils themselves don't satisfy many of the criteria needed to make them ecumenical. (That, however, is the proper subject of another thread on another board.)

May I please ask when the EOs started refering to themselves as the "Church of the Seven Councils"? Obviously the Apostles never did this nor did St. Athanasius nor St Cyril nor anyone else for many centuries of Christianity? Also, there are also an Eighth and a Ninth Ecumenical Council recognised by the Eastern Orthodox Church (though different from those of the RCs). Why then don't the EOs call themselves the "Church of the Nine Councils"?

Well, duh!(I offer this exclamation totally in jest. ) The Apostles and the other saints you name all died centuries before the Iconoclastic Controversy ever required a Seventh Council. Do you think they would have the foresight to recognize that the EO would need to call a Seventh Ecumenical Council and call the Church the "Church of the Seven Councils" centuries in advance? We call ourselves the "Church of the Seven Councils" in a way synonymous with calling ourselves the "Eastern Orthodox Church"--it's more of a label that (sadly) shows how we are separate from the "heterodox" churches (one major communion of whom many EO today believe never was heterodox despite our misunderstanding).

both of can agree no matter how righteous and holy a saint is that does not mean what they say is doctrine... what we should admire is that these people died to protect the apostolic faith at all costs!

Agreed

PeterTheAleut, it seems somewhat odd to us still as we don't go around calling ourself the "Church of the Three Councils"

Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime....because I am blind and yet I see.

Well, duh!(I offer this exclamation totally in jest. ) The Apostles and the other saints you name all died centuries before the Iconoclastic Controversy ever required a Seventh Council. Do you think they would have the foresight to recognize that the EO would need to call a Seventh Ecumenical Council and call the Church the "Church of the Seven Councils" centuries in advance? We call ourselves the "Church of the Seven Councils" in a way synonymous with calling ourselves the "Eastern Orthodox Church"--it's more of a label that (sadly) shows how we are separate from the "heterodox" churches (one major communion of whom many EO today believe never was heterodox despite our misunderstanding).

I beleive our brother had a very ligitimate point to his question which you failed to see.

It seems to me that his point was that:

The apostles did not call themselves the church of the "first council" which they conviened in Jerusalem where very key decisions were made in the name of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. They did not seems to need to make a distinction between those who were to follow the orders set at the 1st council and those who would not follow the decisions and remain with business as usual prior to the 1st council.

This would stand to impart that the apostles did not start this sort of 'scoring card' concept the west has now.

This 'scoring card' concept is a "johnny-come-lately" having NO apostolic origin at all.

This terminology (church of the 7 councils) is a pontification whenever used as if to look down on all others on earth while saying to all that "WE - THIS IS THE TRUE CHURCH and YOU ARE NOT". It smacks of the kind a of Roman-Catholicness people have come to disrespect.

The Church established by Christ and His chosen apostles is Holy, Universal and apostolic; orthodox in our Lord Jesus Christ. Any councils we may have are subject to that which is already established. Thus we are "orthodox". WE are not orthodox outside of the Holy Universal Church. So to say church of the 7 councils is moot to serious orthodox doctrine and respect for Holy tradition and order sent down to us from the beginning since all councils and all activity is a product of the church and takes place within the church. THe church can not change. NO man has the power to change the church.

So I re-assert the question: Why the need to say church of the 7 councils?

It is in my view arrogance and upity high mindedness , a we-are-the truely-blessed-and-they-are-not attitude that is behind this insensitive and un-necessary term. Which is to be expected from the western mind. You can see the we-are-better-than-all-others on earth exuding in every facit of life today from the west. This attitude is the epicenter of western culture. You would be at a loss to find a place on earth today that has not been destroyed or obliterated by the exploits of the mighty west. Two world wars pretty much speak the truth of this point.

Such terminology to me is completely objectionable having no spiritual power. The terminology is bitter. It has the visage of a frowning face

Such terminology cannot offer anyone anything but emnity and confusion. A self serving terminology which reaks of the stinch of utter hopelessness

Such are contrary to the teachings that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ established in His church.

The church of the 7 councils is a very unfortunate...pitiful use of words when speaking about the true Church of Christ since Christ's Church does not need to be defined by councils....the councils however need to be defined by Christ and His church.

Obey God Church!

Love one another Church!

Return good for evil Church!

Withstand each other with patience; perservering all things with love and unity Church.

Divide the faith (not the church) equally among all the church (church here is singular) so that no man falters. And if one falls; pick him up. Let the weak be carried by the stronger Church!

Pray for each other! forgive one another! as you would want God to forgive you Church!

If we all can actually begin to adhere to any of the above "churches" we would begin to see God and His mercy which he has for all of us who are his true followers which is the only real thing that joins us over the significance of councils.

Didymus I think to answer your question about why the Orthodox call themselves the "church of the 7 councils" is because 8 and 9 are not truly considered ecumenical because of the division between east and west. interestingly didymus I was actually going to ask a learned OO whether there were OO saints that were 100% against the EO and vice versa. Also to answer that particular query both of can agree no matter how righteous and holy a saint is that does not mean what they say is doctrine and is definitely not infallible what we should admire is that these people died to protect the apostolic faith at all costs!

Re: The nine Ecumenical Councils, I don't think what you are saying is valid. Even if the lack of the west would invalidate the Ninth Ecumenical Council (and I don't grant this), this is not true of the Eighth, which was pre-schism. Also, if I am reading you correctly, this would seem to invalidate the ability of the Church to hold an Ecumenical Council in the future, which pretty much concedes Roman Catholic claims.

It is a common Roman Catholic claim that our Church is unable (post-schism) to hold an Ecumenical Council because we are not in Communion with the Pope, and they point to the fact that we (supposedly) only accept seven Ecumenical Councils. Now, even accepting that we only hold to seven Ecumenical Councils, the conclusion does not follow. However, podromas, in saying that the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils are not truly Ecumenical because the west was not involved (and, as I said before, this is not valid for the Eighth), concedes this point. It follows from his reasoning that we are even unable to hold an Ecumenical Council in the future.

It is a common Roman Catholic claim that our Church is unable (post-schism) to hold an Ecumenical Council because we are not in Communion with the Pope, and they point to the fact that we (supposedly) only accept seven Ecumenical Councils.

I believe our understanding is that the Supreme Pontiff must be represented at the council and that the Apostolic See has to confirm it afterwards.

It is a common Roman Catholic claim that our Church is unable (post-schism) to hold an Ecumenical Council because we are not in Communion with the Pope, and they point to the fact that we (supposedly) only accept seven Ecumenical Councils. Now, even accepting that we only hold to seven Ecumenical Councils, the conclusion does not follow. However, podromas, in saying that the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils are not truly Ecumenical because the west was not involved (and, as I said before, this is not valid for the Eighth), concedes this point. It follows from his reasoning that we are even unable to hold an Ecumenical Council in the future.

I see. prodomas might wrong, I'm afraid. But we've debated the status of these later 'ecumenically called';i.e., by the emperor here in the past. I believe the consensus (or at least my opinion at the time) was reached that these councils are provisionally ecumenical for us and merely lack the 'official' stamp of approval of yet another ecumenical councils. I know of no EO church which rejects any of these councils. One must bear in mind that for the council of 879, we were in communion (or restored communion) with the Latins and even in the 1300s the schism was not yet set in stone. Hence, there may indeed have been some reluctance to so name those later three councils for the reasons that prodomas asserts. but I don't believe that situation exists now or applies at this time. Yeah, I know...not very lucid today, am I?

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

So I re-assert the question: Why the need to say church of the 7 councils?

It is in my view arrogance and upity high mindedness , a we-are-the truely-blessed-and-they-are-not attitude that is behind this insensitive and un-necessary term.

Deacon,

I really don't think that most EO's have this attitude. I know Peter the Aleut doesn't have that sort of outlook. I think the EO's just think of their Church's beliefs as having been defined by these seven councils, same as we think of our Church's beliefs as having been defined by the three we recognize. They are just stating a fact about their Church. Perhaps some are arrogant about it, but not most. I think you were too quick to come to the conclusion that there was an attitude when there wasn't any. Let's try to assume the best about those we discuss this with. Thanks.

I really don't think that most EO's have this attitude. I know Peter the Aleut doesn't have that sort of outlook. I think the EO's just think of their Church's beliefs as having been defined by these seven councils, same as we think of our Church's beliefs as having been defined by the three we recognize. They are just stating a fact about their Church. Perhaps some are arrogant about it, but not most. I think you were too quick to come to the conclusion that there was an attitude when there wasn't any. Let's try to assume the best about those we discuss this with. Thanks.

I personally don't even refer to my (EO) Church as the "Church of the Seven Councils;" to me, she is just the Church. This is not borne out of any personal objection to the more restrictive name; I just never saw any reason to use it.

I personally don't even refer to my (EO) Church as the "Church of the Seven Councils;" to me, she is just the Church. This is not borne out of any personal objection to the more restrictive name; I just never saw any reason to use it.

Me, too.This term always struck me as one used when talking with RCs and in the context that we are the "Catholics of the Seven Councils". Outside that, never used otherwise and certainly not in OO/EO relations.

« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 03:14:50 AM by Αριστοκλής »

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

The OO Church never regarded itself the Church of the "Three Ecumenical Councils", and i'm not sure that it is even accurate or correct to start using such an appellation. Immediately after Chalcedon, OO Fathers often referred to Ephesus 449 and (I think) Ephesus 475 alongside Ephesus 431 and Nicaea 325 and Constantinople 381 as being the defining instruments of the faith. In the encyclical issued at Ephesus 475, the Bishops declared:

Quote

For we are satisfied with the doctrine and faith of the apostles and of the holy fathers, the three hundred and eighteen bishops; to which also the illustrious Council of the one hundred and fifty in the Royal City, and the two other holy Synods at Ephesus adhered, and which they confirmed.

This suggests that Ephesus 449 was considered on par with Ephesus 431 in some sense.

« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 08:56:06 AM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

I really don't think that most EO's have this attitude. I know Peter the Aleut doesn't have that sort of outlook. I think the EO's just think of their Church's beliefs as having been defined by these seven councils, same as we think of our Church's beliefs as having been defined by the three we recognize. They are just stating a fact about their Church. Perhaps some are arrogant about it, but not most. I think you were too quick to come to the conclusion that there was an attitude when there wasn't any. Let's try to assume the best about those we discuss this with. Thanks.

I came to this concluison a long long time ago.

I pray over it and re-think it through every day. So my point of view can surely be changed. I am not compelled to change as of this date.

Also; I never said "all".

Nothing is ever "all". That is blatantly obvious and goes without saying.

Salpy; my point as I posted is very clear. I was very open in my various views. You are others of course do not have to agree with me.

I have posted many times on this site on how I have had many wonderful and blessed experiences with various OO communities.

"the [Oriental] Church saw nothing objectionable about the veneration of icons established by what the [Eastern Orthodox] call the Seventh Council."

I find it very interesting that the "crisis" of iconoclasm did not even effect western europe (which at the time was VERY Eastern Orthodox). Until this current discussion, it never occurred to me that there was yet another "body" of Christians that never had to deal with the crisis of iconoclasm: which is the "Oriental" Orthodox. It would certainly make sense that the Byzantine empire would be the most insistent on "accepting the 7th Ecumenical council" if they were the only ones that had to deal with that crisis in the first place!

This is not to diminish the VAST differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism... however, I hope this "insight" leads all readers of this thread (especially EO) to an awareness that perhaps the "7th Ecumencial Council" was perhaps more local than "ecumenical."

God bless

The filioque loving Franks held the semi-iconoclast council of Frankfurt in 794, which revoked the 7th Ecumenical Council in part.

The iconoclasts the OO were busy with at the time (and now) were the muslims. Btw, Leo the Isaurian grew up in the Caliphate when Islam was developing its iconoclastic ways.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Our theologians admit we all believe the same thing, but these other issues are pretty big and need to be resolved.

However, I understand that Armenian Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox do not believe the same thing when it comes to the use of leavened or unleavend bread? Is it true that the Armenians use unleavened bread, but the Eastern Orthodox say that it is correct to use leavened bread.

However, I understand that Armenian Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox do not believe the same thing when it comes to the use of leavened or unleavend bread? Is it true that the Armenians use unleavened bread, but the Eastern Orthodox say that it is correct to use leavened bread.

I think this goes to the issue of diversity of practice, which I mentioned in my reply number seven, above. The OO's allow more diversity in liturgical practice, whereas the EO's tend to be more uniform. Again, I think for unity to happen, that would have to be addressed.